Green Disaffection Opens Doors for Democrats

In its continuing struggle to revitalize itself, the American left has recently faced a crucial strategic decision. Contemporary conventional wisdom among many liberals holds that votes for Greens in recent national elections have siphoned votes away from Democrats, thereby providing an advantage to Republicans. Under this view, Republican leadership over every branch of the national government is caused in part by Greens “spoiling” elections.

Two fundamental errors plague this conventional wisdom. First, it implies that each voter’s expression of preference should be subordinate to a strategic calculus aimed toward ensuring the least of two evils. This implication, however, puts the cart before the horse. The reason we value democracy is precisely because it allows individual voters to voice their preferences. Strategic electoral sacrifices have no place in the vision pursued by this country’s Founders.

Second, the conventional view fails to suggest to Democrats the most effective way to avoid the “spoiler” problem. Given that Greens and Democrats traditionally appeal to similar liberal constituencies, Greens presumably “spoil” elections for Democrats because an increasing number of voters find the Democratic Party insufficiently liberal. Some argue that Democrats should respond by moving to the left, in order to capture these disaffected liberals’ votes. Many hailed the recent appointment of Nancy Pelosi as Minority Whip for precisely this reason.

But there’s an even better alternative: Democrats could endorse proportional representation in the House of Representatives. By supporting a more inclusive political structure, Democrats would gain support not only from their liberal roots, but also other voters across the ideological spectrum disaffected by the two-party duopoly.

Minor parties clamor for political recognition, yet even those with vast public support consistently receive neither representation nor media attention. Ralph Nader voiced this complaint throughout the 2000 presidential election cycle. Our national debate used to feature robust contention among genuinely conflicting perspectives. Today, however, Democratic and Republican domination of the political landscape actively restricts free trade in political thought.

The method we use to count votes maintains this two party system, and ultimately matters more than voters’ choices at the polls. European countries with proportional representation enjoy a broad spectrum of debate, whereas American winner-take-all elections systematically ignore fringe voters - including Greens.

Many progressives have recently called for instant-runoff voting (IRV) as a solution to minor party underrepresentation, but the likely effects of IRV extend only to single-seat offices, like President. Proportional representation in the House, on the other hand, would promise national representation not just for ignored candidates, but also for their party organizations. The effects on American political debate could be downright revolutionary.

By adopting proportional representation in the House as part of their party platform, Democrats could appeal not only to disaffected Greens, but also to Libertarian voters similarly disenchanted with the Republican Party. Libertarians are among the Republicans’ most highly mobilized and sophisticated supporters, yet their solidarity with the Republican agenda is even weaker than that of Greens with Democrats.

Libertarians may support Republican economic policies, but the twin wars on drugs and terror are both increasingly dominating the national agenda, and diametrically opposed to Libertarian ideological interests. By supporting proportional representation as a procedural revision to American democracy, Democrats could appeal to all parties regardless of their substantive aims that hope to improve their electoral prospects. Appealing to Libertarians in this fashion could bolster the Democrats’ strength, while also capturing a key Republican constituency.

But there’s a catch. Democrats would have to make good on their rhetoric of being the people’s party. While proportional representation would give a short-run advantage to whichever party adopts it, it would undermine the dominant position shared by the two major parties if enacted.

As the people’s party, Democrats should value the prospect of being an affirmative choice among contending voices, rather than the strategic choice of lesser evils. And if advancing democracy fails to inspire Democrats, perhaps their own interests will, since the alternative is more elections “spoiled” by Greens.

Shahid Buttar is a 3rd year student at Stanford Law School.